Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-24 Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, March 24, 2005 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: Les Wanninger STAFF PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order Chair Richards called the meeting to order. II. New Business a. Handouts Draft Edina Proposed Street Reconstruction Map: In response to questions asked by the Commissioners, Lillehaug stated that the Reconstruction Map is a layout of proposed reconstruction based on condition and age of the roads and utilities. The estimated reconstruction costs includes curb and gutter, but does not include decorative streetlight. The existing road material in most cases determines the type of material used during reconstruction. The life span of concrete roads is longer than bituminous but it is significantly more expensive. There are currently no plans to add bicycle stripping to roadways. Certain design criteria are required for bicycle stripping. Lillehaug said that it would be most cost effective to add traffic calming measures during reconstruction. Dovolis said he would like to see the map coordinated with traffic calming measures and the ETC change priorities to match Engineering’s reconstruction schedule. He cited the Country Club Neighborhood that is scheduled for major reconstruction and said now would be a good time to put that area through the NMTP process, as well as W. 44th St. Thorpe concurred and said 50th & France was a missed opportunity that should not happen again. Bennett said to avoid problems of the past and because what happens in one neighborhood will impact another, she would strongly recommend that they look at the entire area west of France and north of 50th (Country Club, Morningside and the White Oaks Neighborhoods), except the Sunnyslope Neighborhood. The area would need to be scored and ranked and Lillehaug said it could be done very similar to Gleason and Valley View Rd with 44th St being the governing street. He said past traffic studies could probably be used as a starting point. Plante said one member of the Council did not want them to address issues in the Country Club and Morningside Neighborhoods because of the controversy. Dovolis said this does not 2 make good public policy and it is not cost effective to do nothing during reconstruction and then look at making changes later on. Thorpe made a motion to do the scoring and ranking of the three neighborhoods. Motion seconded by Dovolis. Ayes: 4 (Plante, Thorpe, White, Dovolis) Nayes: 2 (Richards, Bennett) Motion carried. Resolution No. 2005-13, Interstate 494 Funding; Edina Resolution No. 2005-16, Highway 100 Project Schedule The Council has adopted the above resolutions for I-494 to increase funding and for Highway 100 opposing the delay. b. Revise Regular Transportation Commission Monthly Meeting Date Dovolis made a motion to change the ETC meeting dates to the third Thursday of every month. Motion seconded by Plante. Ayes: 6 Nayes: 0 Motion carried. c. Development/Redevelopment Review Process Lillehaug developed a set of guidelines for use by the ETC when reviewing land use development/redevelopment. It includes the list of development and zoning applications that would typically initiate a traffic study; a list of four questions for the ETC to consider; followed by the process of commenting, objecting and making a recommendation. Lillehaug said question No. 4 might not be feasible due to time constraints from when an application is submitted and eventually reaches the ETC for consideration, and it would not be fair to hold up a developer if there isn’t a transportation plan in place prior to the application. He said this could result in legal action against the City. Bennett said there must be something that can be done even within the time constraints and the risk of legal action. Plante said the 50th and France redevelopment was known through the grapevine long before it was presented to the City. Dovolis said seeing if there is an opportunity to address an issue may not mean putting a developer on hold. He said he was asked to push a building 10 ft. back in Minneapolis so that a turn lane could be added later on and this did not delay his project. Richards said it’s the government’s responsibility to solve their traffic issues regardless of redevelopment and not hold the private sector hostage. Thorpe said all the issue areas are currently developed and cannot be fixed unless redevelopment is taking place. Lillehaug said to address traffic issues, some cities have placed moratoriums on certain areas, develop transportation plans, completed traffic studies and acquired right-of-ways in anticipation of redevelopment. Bennett said no one wants to hold up a developer but there must be a way to make plans in anticipation of redevelopment. Dovolis said speaking as a developer, question No. 4 is a viable opportunity to consider during the review process. Dovolis made a motion to accept the Development/Redevelopment Review Process as submitted including question No. 4. Bennett seconded the motion with the following amendment: under “Initiation of a Traffic Study” add item #v. as follows: A traffic study would be initiated in an instance in which development or redevelopment is proposed in an area in 3 which there has been a previous identification of traffic problem, including but not limited to congestion or safety issues. Ayes: 5 (Plante, Bennett, Thorpe, White, Dovolis) Nayes: 1 (Richards) Motion carried. d. Community Center & South View Gymnasium Traffic Study – Howard R. Green Company Steve Manhart with Howard R. Green Company said they were commissioned to conduct a traffic study to identify internal and off-site traffic and parking impacts and to determine whether the proposed gymnasiums will adversely impact traffic and parking in the area of the Community Center and South View Middle School. The study area is bounded by W. 60th St. to the north, Lakeview Drive to the south, TH 100 to the east and Wooddale Avenue to the west. In addition to the gymnasiums, there will be building expansion on South View Middle School and the Edina Community Center, as well as the east and west parking lot and reconfiguration of South View’s parking lot. Manhart said they used historical traffic count data dating back to 1975 as well as more current counts (1995-2004), provided to them by the Engineering Department. Through data analysis and observation of the area, the study identified the following:  Local streets have high access but low mobility; principal arterials have low access but high mobility;  Traffic on roadways free flows at Level of Service (LOS) A (LOS-D or better is generally acceptable in the Twin Cities);  Relocation of South View’s students drop-off location will pull more vehicles off Southview Lane; Projected Traffic and Parking Demand  Daytime Scenario: No additional trip generation/parking for school’s gym; 320 additional trips and 40 parking stalls required for the Community Center’s gym (assuming 4 ninety-minute sessions and 40 people per session daily for multi- purpose activities);  Evening Scenario: 120 trips created by two simultaneous practices/games per gym (assuming 40 participants, 4 coaches and 8 spectators); 30 additional parking stalls per gym, but up to 60 spaces to accommodate change over between sessions;  Tournament Weekend Scenario: Four sessions on Friday night per gym (=4x40 trips x 2 gyms) equals 320 additional trips; eight sessions on Saturday per gym (=8x40 trips x 2 gyms) equals 640 additional trips; six sessions on Sunday per gym (=6x40 trips x 2 gyms) equals 480 additional trips.  On-street parking restrictions seem to be in compliance; most parking are on Southview Lane and side streets during weekend tournaments, especially St. Andrews;  Weekend tournament traffic travels primarily along collector streets (Southview Lane, Concord Ave. and Normandale Rd.); In conclusion, the study found that “Levels of Service will not degrade appreciably as a result of the construction of the new gymnasiums and upon completion of the proposed parking lot changes, on-street and off-street parking supply will adequately serve weekday, evening and tournament weekend demands.” 4 Richards indicated that the school should provide adequate off-street parking since they are continuing to intensify usage of the area. Plante concurred and stated that the traffic issue should have been addressed ahead of time and not after-the-fact. Dovolis said usage of the area would intensify even more when new programs are added and even if they were to provide adequate off-street parking, the number of trips generated will be an issue. Bennett said the number of vehicles is over what some members of ETC said is unacceptable for a residential area and there has been a lack of communication with the residents. White suggested creating an alternative transportation system to reduce the number of trips. Thorpe asked what could they do at this point considering that everything appears to be in place and construction has already begun. Lillehaug said funding for the gyms is yet to be approved. Residents in attendance commented as follow: Julie Risser, 6112 Ashcroft Ave. Risser stated that Valley View Rd should have been included in the study because it is used heavily when events are over and while the study addressed traffic on Normandale Rd, it did not address the excess traffic that Valley View Rd will carry. She said Valley View Rd is a 1.1 miles speedway road with one only one place for drivers to stop between Normandale Rd and Hwy 62. She said the only designated crosswalk for students at Concord and Valley View Rd is dangerous because the flasher is on constantly and is therefore ignored by drivers. She said there is also a ‘dip’ in the road just before the crosswalk that makes it difficult for drivers to see an adult crossing, let alone children. She said the sidewalk does not go all the way through and students must be bused 2.5 blocks from Concord Elementary because Valley View Rd is too dangerous to cross. She is also not happy with the increased traffic in the area. Ron Wenaas, 5617 Sherwood Ave. Wenaas stated that he is disappointed that the traffic study only considered the impact of two gyms and not all four that are planned. He said the operating hours used in the study is not correct, it should be from 4-10:30 p.m. which then doubles the traffic study’s assumptions. He said the numbers used to determine trip generations are low and needs to be reconsidered. He stated that the traffic study should have been done based on what the project is going to do to the entire community, not just the effects of two gyms. He said the Edina Community Neighborhood Association implores the ETC to not recommend that they go forward with the gyms. Ralph Overholt, 6321 Rolf Ave. Overholt asked how has the Level of Service changed specifically and are there areas that are more affected than others? He said based on the cost per parking stall, the School Board should get students to bike or use other alternatives. Bennett stated that the Commission does not have an accurate picture of the impact on the community considering that all four gyms were not included in the traffic study. Dovolis concurred, stating that the study does not address all the uses, capacities, functions and future uses. Bennett said the study should not advance until all this information is known. Plante said Valley View Rd should be included in the future study. Dovolis made a motion encouraging a new traffic study that will look at the impact on the entire community, including future potential of sites and withhold approval of gyms until the full impact on the community is known. Seconded by Plante. 5 Ayes: 6 Nayes: 0 Motion carried. III. Old Business a. Update – Transportation Commission Policy Richards said the Council is currently reviewing the policy and it will be back on their agenda for the April 5th meeting. IV. Approval of Minutes Bennett motioned to approve the February 24th minutes as submitted. Seconded by White. V. Open Discussion White asked that the ETC consider supporting the Transportation Choices 20/20 Bill. Richards asked that it be put on the agenda for next meeting for review and discussion. Resident Overholt suggested that the ETC emphasize alternative to cars – bikes, light rail, etc. to cut back on pollution. Resident Risser concurred with Overholt and stated that pedestrians are not supported. She said there is a need for mass transit and suggested a shuttle connecting the Community Center to the Southdale area. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting is schedule for April 28th, 6:00-8:00 p.m., in the Community Room, City Hall. The new ETC meeting date (third Thursday of every month) will take effect in May.